Adversarial reinforcement learning system for simulating security checkpoint environments

ABSTRACT

An adversarial reinforcement learning system is used to simulate a security checkpoint. The system includes a simulation engine configured to simulate a security checkpoint and various threat objects and threat-mitigation objects therein. The system further includes an attack model configured to control threat objects in the simulation and a defense model configured to control threat-mitigation objects in the simulation. A first portion of the simulation is executed by the simulation engine in order to generate an outcome of the first portion of the simulation. The defense model then generates a threat-mitigation input to control threat-mitigation objects in a subsequent portion of the simulation, and the attack model then generates a threat input to control threat objects in the subsequent portion of the simulation, wherein the inputs are based in part on the outcome of the first portion of the simulation.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No.62/847,592, filed on May 14, 2019, the entire contents of which areincorporated herein by reference and for all purposes.

FIELD

This relates generally to simulation systems, and more specifically toadversarial reinforcement learning for simulating security checkpointenvironments.

BACKGROUND

Security checkpoints are used to protect sensitive and secure physicalenvironments such as airport terminals, national borders, governmentfacilities, and sensitive public spaces. In configuring securitycheckpoints, officials are faced with design choices as to how todeploy, position, configure, and use various threat-mitigation devicesused at security checkpoints, such as x-ray machines, metal detectors,body-scanner devices, and the like. Furthermore, officials are facedwith design choices as to how human security agents and canine securityagents should be deployed, positioned, and applied to potential threats.The design and configuration of security checkpoints have obviousimplications for their effectiveness at promoting human safety andinstitutional security. Furthermore, said design and configurationchoices also have financial significance; for example, theTransportation Security Administration (TSA) spends about $8 billion peryear to secure transportation infrastructure in the United States, about$3.6 billion of which is spent on personnel costs and about $450 millionof which is spent on technology procurement.

SUMMARY

As explained above, security checkpoint design has safety implicationsand significant financial implications.

However, efficiently designing and configuring security checkpointsposes unique challenges due to the nature of the risks that securitycheckpoints are designed to mitigate. That is, the risks that securitycheckpoints are designed to mitigate can be very low-probability risks;consider, there have been no major successful terrorist plots against asecure (terminal) side of a U.S. airport since Sep. 11, 2001, while TSAhas processed over ten billion passengers and invested over $100 billionin airport security over that time. Thus, the amount of historic datapoints for the effectiveness of security checkpoints against variousadversarial threats is very low. This lack of data makes designdecisions and investment decisions difficult. Whether those design andinvestment decisions are made by human analysts or by machine-learningsystems, the lack of historical data means that there is simply verylittle basis from which to discern what design choices are safest andwhat investment choices are most efficient. Accordingly, there is a needfor improved systems and methods for analyzing the effectiveness andefficiency of checkpoint security designs, layouts, configurations, andstrategic investments.

Disclosed herein are systems and methods for using adversarialreinforcement learning to simulate security checkpoints in order todetermine effective and efficient security checkpoint configurations. Insome embodiments, a physical security checkpoint environment may besimulated containing various threat-mitigation objects (e.g., x-raymachines, scanners, etc.) and various threat objects (e.g., weaponscarried by adversaries/attackers). The simulated environment may then beconfigured to be controlled by two (or more) adversarialmachine-learning models that are configured to control the simulation toattempt to achieve adverse goals. A defense model may be configured toprovide inputs to the simulation in order to attempt to configure and/ordeploy the threat-mitigation objects in the simulated environment tomaximize safety and efficiency of the checkpoint, whereas an attackmodel may be configured to provide inputs to the simulation to controlsimulated adversaries to wield simulated threat objects against thesecurity checkpoint (to try to either smuggle threat objects through thecheckpoint or to deploy said threat objects against the checkpointitself). The simulation may be allowed to execute a large number ofiterations in which the defense model and the attack model may adjusttheir strategies based on the results of previous iterations in order toattempt to maximize effectiveness. After a large number of iterations,the system may reach an equilibrium under which attack and defensestrategies appear to be optimized under the constraints for thesimulated scenario and environment. Information regarding the attack anddefense strategies may then be output by the system and may be used toconfigure a corresponding real-world security checkpoint and/or to guidestrategic and technological investment for one or more real-worldsecurity checkpoints.

In some embodiments, a method for simulating a security checkpoint isprovided, the method performed by an adversarial reinforcement learningsystem comprising one or more processors, the method comprising:executing a first portion of a simulation of a security checkpoint togenerate an outcome of the first portion of the simulation; generating,by a first model, a threat mitigation input, wherein the threatmitigation input comprises instructions for controlling one or more of aplurality of simulated threat-mitigation objects in a subsequent portionof the simulation, wherein the threat mitigation input is generatedbased at least in part on the outcome of the first portion; generating,by a second model, a threat input, wherein the threat input comprisesinstructions for controlling one or more of a plurality of simulatedthreat objects in the subsequent portion of the simulation, wherein thethreat input is generated based at least in part on the outcome of afirst portion; and executing the subsequent portion of the simulationbased at least in part of the threat mitigation input and the threatinput.

In some embodiments, the method comprises receiving, by the first model,a first set of information regarding the simulated security checkpoint,wherein generating the threat mitigation inputs is based on the firstset of information; and receiving, by the second model, a second set ofinformation regarding the simulated security checkpoint, whereingenerating the threat inputs is based on the second set of information.

In some embodiments, a threat-mitigation object of the plurality ofthreat-mitigation objects is simulated in accordance with an associatedeffectiveness at mitigating an outcome associated with one or morethreat objects of the plurality of threat objects.

In some embodiments, the effectiveness comprises a likelihood ofdetecting the one or more threat objects.

In some embodiments, the effectiveness comprises a capability todecrease severity of the outcome associated with the one or more threatobjects.

In some embodiments, a first threat object of the plurality of threatobjects is simulated in accordance with an outcome associated with thefirst threat object.

In some embodiments, the outcome associated with the first threat objectis based on a location of the first threat object within the simulatedsecurity checkpoint.

In some embodiments, the outcome associated with the first threat objectis associated with a combination of the first threat object and a secondthreat object.

In some embodiments: a threat object of the plurality of threat objectsis simulated in accordance with synthetic data generated by a syntheticdata generator; a threat-mitigation object of the plurality ofthreat-mitigation objects is simulated in accordance with an automatedthreat-detection algorithm; and executing the simulation comprisesapplying the automated threat-detection algorithm to the synthetic data.

In some embodiments, the method comprises automatically receivingenvironment data regarding the security checkpoint to be simulated,wherein executing the simulation of the security checkpoint is based onthe environment data received.

In some embodiments, the method comprises automatically receiving objectdata regarding one or more of the threat-mitigation objects or one ormore of the threat objects to be simulated, wherein executing thesimulation of the security checkpoint is based on the object datareceived.

In some embodiments, generating the threat mitigation input is performedin accordance with a first set of asset limitations that limits thethreat-mitigation objects that may be deployed in the simulation.

In some embodiments, generating the threat input is performed inaccordance with a second set of asset limitations that limits the threatobjects that may be deployed in the simulation.

In some embodiments, the method comprises ceasing executing one or moreof the portions of the simulated environment in accordance withdetermining that one or more stability criteria have been satisfied.

In some embodiments, the method comprises generating output datarepresenting a configuration of the plurality of threat mitigationsrepresented by the threat mitigation inputs for one of the portions ofthe simulation.

In some embodiments, the method comprises generating output datarepresenting a plurality of threats represented by the threat inputs forone of the portions of the simulation.

In some embodiments: executing the first portion of the simulationcomprises executing a first time-step of the simulation; executing thesubsequent portion of the simulation comprises executing a subsequenttime-step of the simulation occurring, in the simulated environment,after the first time-step of the simulation.

In some embodiments: executing the first portion of the simulationcomprises executing a first iteration of the simulation; executing thesubsequent portion of the simulation comprises executing a subsequentiteration of the simulation executed after the first iteration of thesimulation.

In some embodiments, an adversarial reinforcement learning system forsimulating a security checkpoint is provided, the system comprising oneor more processors configured to: execute a first portion of asimulation of a security checkpoint to generate an outcome of the firstportion of the simulation; generate, by a first model, a threatmitigation input, wherein the threat mitigation input comprisesinstructions for controlling one or more of a plurality of simulatedthreat-mitigation objects in a subsequent portion of the simulation,wherein the threat mitigation input is generated based at least in parton the outcome of the first portion; generate, by a second model, athreat input, wherein the threat input comprises instructions forcontrolling one or more of a plurality of simulated threat objects inthe subsequent portion of the simulation, wherein the threat input isgenerated based at least in part on the outcome of a first portion; andexecute the subsequent portion of the simulation based at least in partof the threat mitigation input and the threat input.

In some embodiments, a non-transitory computer-readable storage mediumis provided, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storinginstructions configured to be executed by one or more processors of anadversarial reinforcement learning system the instructions configured tocause the system to: execute a first portion of a simulation of asecurity checkpoint to generate an outcome of the first portion of thesimulation; generate, by a first model, a threat mitigation input,wherein the threat mitigation input comprises instructions forcontrolling one or more of a plurality of simulated threat-mitigationobjects in a subsequent portion of the simulation, wherein the threatmitigation input is generated based at least in part on the outcome ofthe first portion; generate, by a second model, a threat input, whereinthe threat input comprises instructions for controlling one or more of aplurality of simulated threat objects in the subsequent portion of thesimulation, wherein the threat input is generated based at least in parton the outcome of a first portion; and execute the subsequent portion ofthe simulation based at least in part of the threat mitigation input andthe threat input.

In some embodiments, any one or more of the characteristics of any oneor more of the systems, methods, and/or computer-readable storagemediums recited above may be combined, in whole or in part, with oneanother and/or with any other features or characteristics describedelsewhere herein.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

FIG. 1 depicts a system for simulating security checkpoint environmentsusing adversarial reinforcement learning, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 2 depicts a flowchart representing an exemplary method forsimulating security checkpoint environments using adversarialreinforcement learning, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 3 depicts a computer, according to some embodiments.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Described herein are exemplary embodiments of systems and methods forsimulating security checkpoint environments using adversarialreinforcement learning that may address the problems and shortcomings ofknown systems and methods for configuring security checkpoints describedabove.

In some embodiments, an adversarial reinforcement learning system and asimulation engine may be deployed together to simulate a securitycheckpoint. A plurality of iterations of the simulated securitycheckpoint may be controlled by the adversarial reinforcement learningsystem, whereby a defense model configures threat-mitigation objects inthe simulated environment and an attack model controls threat objects inthe simulated environment. Given predefined constraints as to layout,size, and resources for the checkpoint and for adversaries attacking thecheckpoint, the system may iteratively simulate attacks against thecheckpoint such that each of the adversarial models attempts to optimizeits strategies. After a large number of iterations (e.g., after theadversarial models have reached a stable configuration/strategy overmany iterations), information regarding the strategies deployed by thetwo models may be output from the system and may be leveraged inconfiguring one or more corresponding real-world security checkpoints.

Exemplary System

FIG. 1 depicts a system 100 for simulating security checkpointenvironments using adversarial reinforcement learning, according to someembodiments. System 100 may comprise simulation engine 102,administrator system 104, defense model 106 a, and attack model 106 b.Defense model 106 a and attack model 106 b may together constitute anadversarial reinforcement learning system which may be referred to asadversarial reinforcement learning system 106. As described in detailherein, simulation engine 102 may execute simulations of a securitycheckpoint environment in accordance with inputs (e.g., controls)received from adversarial reinforcement learning system 106, andadversarial reinforcement learning system 106 may be configured toadaptively learn and to adjust strategies to optimize inputs in order toachieve desired outcomes in the simulated environment.

Simulation engine 102 may comprise any one or more computer systemsconfigured to execute simulations of a security checkpoint environment.In some embodiments, simulation engine 102 may comprise any one or moreprocessors, personal computers, super-computers, servers, and/or virtualmachines configured to execute instructions stored locally or remotelyto build, store, and/or execute one or more iterations of a simulationof a security checkpoint. In some embodiments, simulation engine 102 mayallow a user or controlling system to exercise control over entities,objects, and behaviors within the simulated environment. For example, auser or controlling system may be able to control (1) entitiestravelling through the simulation (e.g., people, whether or not thoseentities are terrorists/adversaries), (2) objects in the simulation(e.g., detectors, including how detection happens when an entity is atan object), and (3) paths that entities take within the simulatedenvironment (e.g., if an entity is detected, where do they go). Thisarrangement may enable a user or controlling system to have control overentities carrying or wielding threat objects, over detectors havingcontrollable detection rates for detecting or mitigating threat objects,and over behaviors and outcomes (e.g., what happens to an entity if adetector detects or does not detect a threat object being carried and/orwielded by the entity?).

As described herein, a simulation of a security checkpoint may comprisesoftware configured to, when executed by one or more processors, render(and in some embodiments display one or more visualizations of) one ormore simulations of a security checkpoint environment, wherein thesimulated environment comprises (1) a simulated spatialenvironment/layout, (2) a plurality of simulated threat-mitigationobjects, and (3) a plurality of simulated threat objects.

In some embodiments, the simulated spatial environment/layout of thesimulation may comprise bounds defining the spatial extent of thephysical environment in which threat-mitigation objects and/or threatobjects may be positioned and may function within the simulatedenvironment. In some embodiments, the simulated spatialenvironment/layout of the simulation may comprise a “game-board” layoutconfigured to accept placement of threat-mitigation objects or threatobject and/or configured to allow structured movement of the objectswithin the simulated environment.

In some embodiments, the plurality of simulated threat objects mayinclude simulations of devices and/or objects that may pose a threat ofharm to an area beyond the security checkpoint and/or to the securitycheckpoint itself. For example, simulated threat objects may includefirearms, blades, explosives, incendiaries, other weapons, and/or otherprohibited materials (e.g., benign liquids such as water may beconsidered threat objects if they are nevertheless prohibited due to anover-inclusive security policy banning all liquids).

In some embodiments, threat objects may be simulated in accordance withone or more associated respective outcomes. In some embodiments, anoutcome of a threat object may include data characterizing the nature(e.g., type) and/or severity of damage or harm that may be caused by thethreat object. In some embodiments, an outcome of a threat object maycomprise a quantification or other characterization of harm or damagethat may be inflicted by the threat object, including property damageinflicted by the threat object, injuries or loss of life inflicted bythe threat object, and/or political, social, or economic damage or lossthat may be inflicted by the threat object. In some embodiments, anoutcome of a threat object may be characterized by a numerical valuequantifying the severity of harm/loss that may be inflicted by thethreat object. In some embodiments, the numerical value may be a dollaramount characterizing a monetary value associated with the modeledoutcome; in some embodiments, the numerical value may be a score on anon-monetary scale.

In some embodiments, different outcomes may be associated with the samethreat object depending on the location of the threat object within thesimulated environment. For example, greater harm may be associated witha firearm if the firearm is successfully smuggled through the securitycheckpoint environment (e.g., to a terminal side of an airport securitycheckpoint) than if the firearm is merely brought to a metal detector ofthe security checkpoint. In another example, greater harm may beassociated with an explosive device if the explosive device is detonatedat a crowded security checkpoint line than if the device is detonatedinside an x-ray machine or in a sparsely populated area at the peripheryof a security checkpoint environment. The magnitude of a numerical valueassociated with these different outcomes may vary in accordance with theseverity of the harm associated with the outcome, as determined in partbased on the location of the threat object in the simulated environment.

In some embodiments, different outcomes may be associated with the samethreat object depending on whether the threat object is positioned inproximity to one or more adversarial actors (e.g., a simulated terroristor other simulated attacker in the simulation). For example, some threatobjects may be ineffective or less effective if they are not controlledby an adversarial actor, and the magnitude of a numerical valueassociated with different outcomes of the threat object may vary inaccordance with whether the object is located near an adversarial actorin the simulation who may operate or control the threat object.

In some embodiments, different outcomes may be associated with the samethreat object depending on whether the threat object is positioned inproximity to one or more checkpoint agents or civilians. For example,some threat objects may be more or less effective at inflictingharm/damage at a distance than in close proximity to victims, and themagnitude of a numerical value associated with different outcomes of thethreat object may vary in accordance with whether the object is locatednear a victim in the simulation.

In some embodiments, different outcomes may be associated with the samethreat object depending on whether the threat object is positioned inproximity to one or more additional threat objects within thesimulation. Some outcomes may depend on more than one threat objectbeing brought together in the same place at the same time. In someembodiments, the combined outcomes associated with a plurality ofdifferent threat objects may be greater than the sum of the outcomes ofthe individual threat objects. For example, some threat objects may beineffective at inflicting harm/damage in isolation, but may be able tobe combined with one another to inflict harm or damage. For example,ammunition and a firearm may be simulated in accordance with outcomesmodeling greater harm/damage when the firearm and ammunition are locatedtogether in the same place than in situations in which only one ispresent without the other. The magnitude of a numerical value associatedwith different outcomes of a threat object may thus vary in accordancewith whether the object is located near one or more other threat objectsin the simulation.

In some embodiments, the plurality of simulated threat-mitigationobjects may include simulations of security devices and/or personnel,including but not limited to: x-ray machines, body-scanner devices,metal detectors, bottled liquid scanners, electronic trace detectors,human operators of one or more machines, human security officers, caninesecurity officers, etc.

In some embodiments, threat-mitigation objects may be simulated inaccordance with a capability to detect and/or mitigate one or moreoutcomes of a threat object. In some embodiments, capabilities ofdetecting a threat object may be modeled in accordance with datarepresenting an automated threat detection algorithm of a device. Insome embodiments, capabilities of detecting and/or mitigating a threatobject may be modeled in accordance with data regarding the historicaleffectiveness of performance of human security agents and/or caninesecurity agents. In some embodiments, certain agents and/orthreat-mitigation objects may be more effective at detecting and/ormitigating certain kinds of threat object than other kinds of threatobjects (e.g., a metal detector may not detect a plastic object) andtheir capabilities may be modeled accordingly. In some embodiments,certain agents and/or threat-mitigation objects may be more or lesseffective at detecting and/or mitigating certain threat objects at adistance versus at close proximity (e.g., a canine officer may be morelikely to detect an explosive device at close range than from adistance), and their performance within the simulation may be modeledaccordingly.

In some embodiments, detection and/or mitigation of a threat object by athreat-mitigation object may eliminate a threat outcome associated withthe threat object (e.g., a numerical score associated with the threatoutcome may be reduced to zero). In some embodiments, detection and/ormitigation of a threat object by a threat-mitigation object may reducebut not eliminate a threat outcome associated with the threat object(e.g., a numerical score associated with the threat outcome may bereduced to a non-zero number). In some embodiments, the location in thesecurity checkpoint at which a threat object is detected may determine,at least in part, whether and the extent to which associated outcomes ofthe threat object are reduced and/or eliminated. In some embodiments,the proximity of a threat object to one or more adversarial agents,non-adversarial agents, and/or one or more other threat objects at thetime of its detection by a threat-mitigation object may determine, inpart, whether and the extent to which associated outcomes of the threatobject are reduced and/or eliminated.

In some embodiments, simulation engine 102 may be communicativelycoupled with (e.g., configured to send and/or receive wired and/orwireless network transmissions to and/or from) administrator system 104.In some embodiments, administrator system 104 may be any one or morecomputer systems configured to accept inputs from a system administratorto configure or otherwise control simulation engine 102 (and/or attackmodel 106 as discussed below). In some embodiments, administrator systemmay be provided by a same or different set of one or more processorsthat provide simulation engine 102.

Administrator system 104 may be configured to accept inputs from anadministrator for configuring one or more aspects of the simulatedsecurity checkpoint provided by simulation engine 102. In someembodiments, an administrator may provide inputs to administrator system104 to cause control signals to be transmitted to simulation engine 102to configure one or more constraints for the simulated securitycheckpoint. In some embodiments, constraints for the simulated securitycheckpoint may include: security checkpoint environmentsize/shape/layout, threat objects available to attackers/adversaries inthe simulation; threat object properties (e.g., outcome capabilities,interactions with agents, interactions with the simulated environment,interactions with other threat objects); and/or threat object properties(e.g., capabilities to detect and/or mitigate various types of threatobjects in different simulated scenarios/arrangements).

In some embodiments, constraints specified by a user via administratorsystem 104 may also include constraints as to the number of iterationsof a simulation to be run, the types of inputs that the simulation mayaccept to configure threat-mitigation objects and/or to control threatobjects (as discussed in further detail below), the information from thesimulation available to one or more adversarial models executingcontrols against the simulation, and/or information output from thesimulation regarding configurations and/or metrics of the one or moresimulation iterations.

In some embodiments, constraints specified by a user via administratorsystem 104 may include constraints as to in-simulation assets availableto defense model 106 a and/or to attack model 106 b as discussed below.In some embodiments, in-simulation assets that are available to one orboth models 106 a and 106 b may include a characterization orquantification of the value of threat-mitigation objects or threatobjects that may be deployed within the simulation. In some embodiments,in-simulation asset limits may be defined by a numerical quantificationsuch as a monetary value, and various in-simulation objects may beassigned respective numerical costs or monetary values. In this way, thedefense model and attack model controlling the threat-mitigation objectsand threat objects in the simulation may be constrained in the value andquantity of objects that may be deployed within the simulation. Usingin-simulation asset limitations to limit the quantity and quality ofobjects that may be deployed in the simulation may cause the models 106a and 106 b, as discussed below, to attempt to optimize outcomes (e.g.,minimize harm inflicted on the simulated checkpoint or maximize harminflicted on the simulated checkpoint) of the simulation while alsoachieving those outcomes efficiently and within constraints (e.g.,expenditure constraints) that are practicable for application inreal-world security checkpoint scenarios. In some embodiments, allowingan administrator to adjust asset allocations may allow system 100 to beapplied to assess the maximum possible effectiveness/safety of securitycheckpoints with different amounts of funding.

In addition to or alternatively to accepting configurations fromadministrator system 104 based on manual user inputs, system 100 may beconfigured such that administrator system 104 may transmit configurationinstructions to simulation engine 102 based on one or more automatedprocesses. For example, administrator system 102 may be configured toautomatically ingest data from one or more data sources regardingcharacteristics of real-world checkpoints, real-world threat-mitigationobjects, and or real-world threat objects to be modeled in a simulation.Administrator system 102 (and/or an associated system) may in someembodiments receive said data via one or more APIs. Administrator system102 (and/or an associated system) may in some embodiments use said datato generate one or more inputs for configuring constraints of thesimulation executed by simulation engine 102.

In some embodiments, the simulation engine may be configured toautomatically receive data regarding an environment to be simulatedand/or the nature and characteristics of one or more objects in thesimulated environment. For example, the simulation engine may beconfigured to automatically receive (e.g., via one or more APIs)information regarding a physical layout of a security checkpoint, andmay be configured to automatically receive (e.g., via one or more APIs)information regarding the nature and performance (e.g., quantificationsof harm outcomes, quantifications of threat recognition effectiveness)of one or more objects to be simulated. For example, as automated threatrecognition algorithms associated with a threat-mitigation object to besimulated are improved (e.g., by continuous efforts to improve theeffectiveness and accuracy of the algorithms, for example throughmachine learning), those improvements may be automatically pushed to thesimulation engine and automatically integrated into the simulation ofthe security checkpoint. In this way, the simulation engine may be ableto automatically update the simulation based on the newest availabledata from one or more data sources without the need for manual userintervention.

In some embodiments, simulation engine 102 may be communicativelycoupled with (e.g., configured to send and/or receive wired and/orwireless network transmissions to and/or from) both defense model 106 aand attack model 106 b, the two of which may collectively be a part ofan adversarial reinforcement learning system 106 configured to provideinputs for controlling one or more simulations executed by simulationengine 102. In some embodiments, adversarial reinforcement learningsystem 106 may be configured to apply any one or more adversarialreinforcement learning algorithms, including but not limited to one ormore value-based algorithms (e.g., Q learning), policy-based algorithms,actor-critic algorithms, advantage actor-critic algorithms, and/orasynchronous advantage actor-critic algorithms.

The simulation of a security checkpoint provided by simulation engine102 may be configured to accept (a) threat mitigation inputs forconfiguring and controlling one or more threat-mitigation objects withinthe simulated environment and (b) threat inputs for configuring andcontrolling one or more threat objects within the simulated environment.Defense model 106 a may be configured to provide threat mitigationinputs to simulation engine 102, wherein defense model 106 a isconfigured to attempt to minimize harmful/damaging outcomes created bythreat objects in the simulation, and attack model 106 b may beconfigured to provide threat inputs to simulation engine 102, whereinattack model 106 b is configured to attempt to maximize harmful/damagingoutcomes created by threat objects in the simulation. In someembodiments in which simulation engine 102 characterizesharmful/damaging outcomes created by threat objects in the simulationusing a numerical score quantifying the harmful outcomes, defense model106 a may be configured to attempt to minimize the numerical score whileattack model 106 b may be configured to attempt to maximize thenumerical score.

In some embodiments, simulation engine 102 may be configured to acceptinputs from models 106 a and 106 b in an alternating or otherwiseturn-based manner for a single iteration of the simulation; in someembodiments, simulation engine 102 may be configured to accept inputsfrom models 106 a and 106 b simultaneously. In some embodiments,simulation engine 102 may be configured to accept a plurality ofthreat-mitigation inputs to deploy, arrange, and configure one or morethreat-mitigation objects in the simulation and to thereafter accept oneor more threat inputs for controlling one or more adversarial agents inthe simulation to attempt to use one or more threat objects to attackand/or traverse the threat-mitigation objects; in this way, thethreat-mitigation inputs may in some embodiments create a staticdefensive arrangement which attack model 106 b may then assess andattempt to traverse.

In some embodiments, defense model 106 a may be configured such thatmodels 106 a and 106 b may have access to respective sets of informationabout the simulation that may be used as a basis for formulating theirrespective inputs for controlling objects in the simulation. In someembodiments, the information visible to one or both of the models 106 aand 106 b may include various information about the simulatedenvironment, such as layout of the environment, simulated agents (e.g.,people, security officers, security canines, civilians,attackers/terrorists) in the environment, and/or expected behavior ofsimulated agents in the environment.

In some embodiments, information visible to the two models 106 a and 106b may be different. In some embodiments, one model may have access tomore information than the other model. For example, in some embodiments,the amount of information available to defense model 106 a may begreater than the information available to attack model 106 b; thisarrangement may, for example, simulate situations in which a securityagency such as the TSA may have greater institutional knowledge about asecurity checkpoint layout that is not available toadversaries/attackers.

In some embodiments, information available to attack model 106 b mayinclude certain information about one or more threat mitigation inputsfor a current iteration of the simulation that have been inputted by thedefense model 106 a. That is, attack model 106 b may be able to accessand leverage certain information about a defensive configuration createdby the first model, and may thus be able to make decisions about vectorsof attack for a current iteration of the simulation based on thatvisible information about current defensive configuration/layout.

In some embodiments, simulation engine 102 may be configured to accept arespective set of threat mitigation inputs from defense model 106 a andto accept a respective set of threat inputs from attack model 106 b foreach iteration of the simulation. Thus, in embodiments in which multipleiterations of the same simulation are executed successively, each model106 a and 106 b may provide a new respective set of inputs for eachsuccessive iteration. In some embodiments, each model 106 a and 106 bmay have access to some or all output information and/or metricsregarding one or more previous iterations of the simulation, and saidinformation may be used by one or more of the models as a basis forformulating a new set of inputs for an upcoming iteration of thesimulation. In this way, the models 106 a and 106 b may improve andoptimize strategies by learning what inputs are successful at achievinggoals (e.g., maximizing or minimizing harm outcomes) and overcoming,circumventing, or thwarting the opposing model's strategies.

In some embodiments, the output information that is available to themodels 106 a and 106 b to be used as a potential basis for inputs forfuture simulation iterations may be symmetric between the models. Insome embodiments, the output information available to the models may beasymmetric, in that the models 106 a and 106 b may have access todifferent respective subsets of the available output information.

In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 1, one or both of defense model106 a and attack model 106 b may be communicatively coupled toadministrator system 104 to allow administrator system 104 to transmitconfiguration and control commands to the models and/or to allow themodels to transmit information about execution of the simulations backto administrator system 104.

It should be noted that, in some embodiments, some or all networkcommunication between the various illustrated components of system 100may be performed via direct communicative link (e.g., as illustrated)and/or may be performed via indirect communicative link (e.g., one orboth of models 106 a and 106 b may communicate with simulation engine102 by transmitting messages via administrator system 104, rather thandirectly).

Although FIG. 1 is shown as having a simulation engine 102,administrator system 104, defense model 106 a, and attack model 106 b,it is also contemplated that one or more of the components of FIG. 1 maybe provided as different components of a combined computing system, suchas different processes executable by a single processor; and/or that oneor more of the components of FIG. 1 may be provided as a singleprocessing component or module.

In some embodiments, a system for simulating security checkpointenvironments using adversarial reinforcement learning (such as system100) may include one or more synthetic data generators (not illustratedin FIG. 1). A synthetic data generator may be any computer systemconfigured to generate synthetic data that realistically and effectivelysimulated real-world data of a certain data type. For example, asynthetic data generator may be used to generate photorealisticsynthetic images of faces of people who do not actually exist. In thecheckpoint security space, synthetic data may be particularly usefulbecause of privacy restrictions that prevent the collection, storage,and/or widespread use of real-world checkpoint security data. Forexample, privacy restrictions prevent the storage of body-scanner imagescollected by TSA, which means that simulation systems such as thosedescribed herein may not have access to corpuses of body-scanner datathat could be used to simulate the performance of automatedthreat-detection algorithms against real-world body-scanner data. Thus asynthetic data generator system may, in some embodiments, be usedinstead of a corpus of actual image data (or other data) to generatesynthetic image data (or other data) that may be analyzed by anautomated threat-detection algorithm as part of execution of thesimulation. In this way, the performance of actual automatedthreat-detection algorithms may be modeled within the simulation, ratherthan simply abstracting aspects of the performance of automatedthreat-detection algorithms (for example by modeling a threat-detectionalgorithm as a simplified likelihood of detection of a threat object) inthe simulation. For these purposes, a synthetic data generator may insome embodiments be deployed as part of a simulation engine and/or anadministrator system to generate synthetic data to which one or morethreat-detection algorithms may be applied as part of executing aniteration of a simulated security checkpoint.

In some embodiments, a synthetic data generator may additionally oralternatively be used to generate data (e.g., images, simulation data)for one or more synthetic bags and/or synthetic persons. A synthetic bagand/or synthetic person may be configured to attempt to conceal one ormore synthetic threats that correspond to the physical properties of oneor more real-world threats.

Exemplary Method

FIG. 2 depicts a method 200 for simulating security checkpointenvironments using adversarial reinforcement learning, according to someembodiments. In some embodiments, method 200 may be performed by asystem for simulating security checkpoint environments using adversarialreinforcement learning, such as system 100 as described above.

At block 202, in some embodiments, the system may define one or morecharacteristics for a simulated security checkpoint. In someembodiments, defining one or more characteristics for a simulatedsecurity checkpoint may comprise generating and storing data allowingthe system to execute one or more iterations of a simulation of thesimulated security checkpoint. In the example of system 100, definingone or more characteristics for the simulation may be performed bysimulation engine 102 in accordance instructions transmitted fromadministrator system 104 regarding constraints and/or other parametersor instructions for configuring characteristics of the simulation.

In some embodiments, characteristics for the simulated securitycheckpoint may be based on inputs manually entered by a user (e.g., asystem administrator configuring the simulation). In some embodiments,characteristics for the simulated security checkpoint may be based ondata or other information received from one or more automated dataingestion processes, including but not limited to ingesting data, suchas via one or more APIs, regarding real-world security checkpoints,real-world security checkpoint policies/procedures, real-world securitycheckpoint resources (e.g., budgetary information), real-worldthreat-mitigation objects, and/or real-world threat objects.

At block 204, in some embodiments, defining one or more characteristicsfor the simulated security checkpoint may be based on receiving inputregarding the security checkpoint spatial environment to be simulated.For example, the system may receive information regarding a physicallayout (e.g., shape, size, characteristics of different spatial areas,etc.) of a security checkpoint. This information may be used, in someembodiments, to create a “game board” for the simulated environment uponwhich one or more simulated threat-mitigation objects and/or threatobjects may be deployed and upon which one or more simulated agents(e.g., simulated security officers, simulated attackers/adversaries,simulated civilians, etc.) may navigate. In some embodiments, thereceived information regarding the security checkpoint spatialenvironment to be simulated may be based on one or more real-worldsecurity checkpoints (e.g., the simulation may be configured to simulatea specific checkpoint), while in some embodiments the informationregarding the security checkpoint spatial environment to be simulatedmay not be based on any existing real-world security checkpoint (e.g.,the simulation may be configured to test a potential design for a newsecurity checkpoint).

At block 206, in some embodiments, defining one or more characteristicsfor the simulated security checkpoint may be based on receiving inputregarding characteristics of one or more threat-mitigation objects to besimulated. For example, the system may receive information including alist of different threat-mitigation objects that are available fordeployment in the simulated security checkpoint. The system mayadditionally receive information regarding the characteristics ofrespective threat-mitigation objects available for deployment.

Characteristics of respective threat-mitigation objects may includecapabilities of a respective threat-mitigation object to detect and/ormitigate various respective threat objects. For example, the informationreceived may include a likelihood of detecting a certain kind of threatobject (in various situations/arrangements), which may in someembodiments be based on an automated threat-detection algorithm deployedby a real-world threat-mitigation object that is being simulated.Furthermore, the information may include a degree to which a respectivethreat-mitigation object is able to reduce (and/or eliminate) aharm/damage outcome of a certain kind of threat object (in varioussituations/arrangements). In the case of mitigating harm/damage outcomesof a threat object, the information may include a raw value and or apercentage by which a threat-mitigation object may reduce a quantifiedvalue of a harm/damage outcome of the threat object.

In some embodiments, the information may include information regardingwhat arrangements (e.g., spatial relationships) may cause athreat-mitigation object to detect or mitigate an outcome of a threatobject. For example, some threat-mitigation objects may be simulatedsuch that they have a higher probability to detect a threat object atcloser proximities and a lower probability of detecting the threatobject across larger distances.

Characteristics of respective threat-mitigation objects may includeinformation regarding their size, shape, weight, and/or other physicalproperties of the threat-mitigation object. In some embodiments, athreat-mitigation object's physical characteristics may determine how itmay be positioned within the simulated environment (e.g., where on the“game-board” the threat-mitigation object may be positioned).

Characteristics of respective threat-mitigation objects may includeinformation regarding how a threat-mitigation object interacts with oneor more other objects and/or agents in the simulated environment; forexample, whether a threat-mitigation object can be carried by a person,how it can be positioned in the simulated environment, whether a personcan interact with the object (e.g., by moving it, carrying it, walkingthrough it, repositioning it, etc.).

In some embodiments, the received information regarding thethreat-mitigation objects to be simulated may be based on one or morereal-world threat-mitigation objects (e.g., the simulation may beconfigured to simulate the performance of existing real-worldequipment), while in some embodiments the information regarding thesecurity checkpoint spatial environment to be simulated may not be basedon any existing real-world threat-mitigation objects (e.g., thesimulation may be configured to test a potential new design for newsecurity equipment).

At block 208, in some embodiments, defining one or more characteristicsfor the simulated security checkpoint may be based on receiving inputregarding characteristics of one or more threat objects to be simulated.For example, the system may receive information including a list ofdifferent threat objects that are available for deployment in thesimulated security checkpoint. The system may additionally receiveinformation regarding the characteristics of respective threat objectsavailable for deployment.

Characteristics of respective threat objects may include capabilities ofa respective threat object to cause outcomes representing harm/damagewithin the simulated environment. The information may include anindication of the nature/type of harm/damage that may be caused by athreat object (e.g., loss of life, injury, property damage, politicaldamage, etc.) and/or a characterization or quantification of the extentof the harm/damage that may be caused by a threat object. As discussedabove, in some embodiments, outcomes may be characterized by aquantification of harm or damage, such as a numerical score and/or amonetary value.

In some embodiments, the information received may include a likelihoodof a threat object inflicting a certain kind of harmful outcome (invarious situations/arrangements), which may in some embodiments be basedon information about a real-world threat object or class of threatobjects that are being simulated. In some embodiments, the informationreceived may include a likelihood of a threat object being detectedand/or mitigated by a threat-mitigation object, which in someembodiments may be based on known information about the implicatedthreat-mitigation object and/or an automated threat-detection algorithmemployed thereby.

Furthermore, the information may include a degree to which a harm/damageoutcome of a respective threat object is able to be reduced (and/oreliminated) by a certain kind of threat-mitigation object (in varioussituations/arrangements). In the case of a harm/damage outcome of athreat object being reduced or mitigated by any one of variousthreat-mitigation objects, the information about the threat object mayinclude a raw value and or a percentage by which the variousthreat-mitigation objects may reduce a quantified value of a harm/damageoutcome of the threat object.

In some embodiments, the information may include information regardingwhat arrangements (e.g., spatial relationships) or other in-simulationsituations may cause a threat object to inflict one or more of itsoutcomes (e.g., information may include whether the threat object mayinflict damage from afar or whether it must be nearby a victim toinflict damage). In some embodiments, the information may includeinformation regarding what arrangements (e.g., spatial relationships) orother in-simulation situations may cause a threat object to be more orless likely to be detected or mitigated by one or more respectivethreat-mitigation objects. For example, some threat objects may besimulated such that they have a higher probability of being detected bya threat-mitigation object at closer proximities and a lower probabilityof being detected by the threat-mitigation object across largerdistances.

Characteristics of respective threat objects may include informationregarding their size, shape, weight, and/or other physical properties ofthe threat object. In some embodiments, a threat object's physicalcharacteristics may determine how it may be positioned within thesimulated environment (e.g., where on the “game-board” thethreat-mitigation object may be positioned).

Characteristics of respective threat-mitigation objects may includeinformation regarding how a threat object interacts with one or moreother objects and/or agents in the simulated environment; for example,whether a threat object can be carried by a person, whether/how it maybe concealed, how it can be positioned in the simulated environment,whether a person can interact with the object (e.g., by moving it,carrying it, wielding it, triggering it, repositioning it, etc.).

In some embodiments, the received information regarding the threatobjects to be simulated may be based on one or more real-world threatobjects (e.g., the simulation may be configured to simulate theperformance of known types of weapons or other known types of threats),while in some embodiments the information regarding the securitycheckpoint spatial environment to be simulated may not be based on anyexisting real-world threat objects (e.g., the simulation may beconfigured to test performance of potential new designs for novelweapons or improvised threat devices).

At block 210, in some embodiments, defining one or more characteristicsfor the simulated security checkpoint may be based on receiving inputregarding assets usable in the simulated security checkpoint.

In some embodiments, the information may specify a quantification forresources that are available to be expended on threat-mitigation objectsor other threat-mitigation efforts within an iteration of thesimulation. Thus, the simulation may be configured to test effectivenesslevels for checkpoints under different levels of funding for securityagencies. In some embodiments, asset limitations may be expressed as anumerical quantification (e.g., a numerical value or monetary value thatmay be “spent” on threat-mitigation objects and/or threat-mitigationstaff). In some embodiments, asset limitations may be expressed as alimitation on a number or quantity of certain kinds of threat-mitigationobjects that may be deployed (e.g., a numerical limit on the number ofhuman security agents available at a checkpoint).

In some embodiments, the information may specify a quantification forresources that are available to be expended on threat objects or otherattacker/terrorist efforts within an iteration of the simulation. Thus,the simulation may be configured to test effectiveness levels forcheckpoints against adversarial forces of different levels ofsophistication and/or funding. In some embodiments, asset limitationsmay be expressed as a numerical quantification (e.g., a numerical valueor monetary value that may be “spent” on threat objects and/or attackerpersonnel). In some embodiments, asset limitations may be expressed as alimitation on a number or quantity of certain kinds of threat objectsthat may be deployed (e.g., a numerical limit on the number of humanattackers/terrorists available to assail a checkpoint).

In some embodiments, in addition to defining characteristics for thesimulated security checkpoint itself (e.g., as explained with respect toblock 202), the system may further be configured to define informationabout how the simulation should be run. For example, the system mayreceive, generate, and/or store data indicating how many iterations of asimulation should be run, what computing resources or components shouldbe used to run a simulation, when a simulation should be run, one ormore conditions for beginning or ending one or more iterations of asimulation, information regarding permissions for configuring asimulation, and/or information regarding permissions for viewing orreceiving output/metrics information regarding a simulation.

At block 212, in some embodiments, after defining the characteristics ofthe simulated security checkpoint as well as threat-mitigation objectand threat objects available to be deployed therein, the system mayexecute a plurality of iterations of the simulated security checkpoint.As explained herein, execution of an iteration of the simulation by asimulation engine (e.g., simulation engine 102) may comprise receiving aset of threat-mitigation inputs and a set of threat inputs to controlthreat-mitigation objects and threat objects within the simulation,respectively. As explained in further detail below, the system may beconfigured such that the simulation engine accepts the respective setsof inputs from two different models of an adversarial reinforcementlearning system, such as model defense model 106 a and attack model 106b as described above with respect to FIG. 1. One of the models (e.g.,defense model 106 a) may be configured to attempt to minimize theharm/damage outcomes that are inflicted in the iteration of thesimulation, while the other one of the models may be configured toattempt to maximize the harm/damage outcomes that are inflicted in theiteration of the simulation. In this way, each of the models may attemptto thwart and overcome the efforts of the other model, and may attempt,based on the information available to each model (including informationabout outcomes from prior iterations), over successive iterations of thesimulation, to optimize the strategies that it applies in generating andproviding its inputs.

At block 214, in some embodiments, executing the plurality of iterationsof the simulated security checkpoint may be based on receivingthreat-mitigation inputs, from a first model of an adversarialreinforcement learning system, for configuring threat-mitigation objectsin a respective iteration of the simulated security checkpointenvironment. As discussed above, a threat-mitigation input may be anyinstructions input to the simulation engine for configuring or otherwisecontrolling one or more simulated threat-mitigation objects within thesimulation. For example, threat-mitigation inputs may compriseinstructions for selecting one or more available threat-mitigationobjects to be deployed in a simulated environment, for spatiallypositioning one or more threat-mitigation objects in the simulatedenvironment, and/or for configuring one or more settings, practices, orbehaviors of deployed threat-mitigation objects in the simulatedenvironment.

At block 216, in some embodiments, executing the plurality of iterationsof the simulated security checkpoint may be based on receiving threatinputs, from a second model of an adversarial reinforcement learningsystem, for configuring or otherwise controlling threat objects in therespective iteration of the simulated security checkpoint environment.As discussed above, a threat input may be any instructions input to thesimulation engine for configuring or otherwise controlling one or moresimulated threat objects within the simulation. For example, threatinputs may comprise instructions for selecting one or more availablethreat objects to be deployed in a simulated environment, for spatiallypositioning and/or maneuvering one or more threat objects in thesimulated environment, for configuring one or more settings, practices,or behaviors of deployed threat objects in the simulated environment,and/or for causing one or more threat objects to inflict one or moreharm/damage outcomes in the simulated environment.

With respect to blocks 214 and 216, in some embodiments, one or both ofthe models may be configured to generate their respective inputs basedon information available to the respective model. In some embodiments,the models may be configured such that they have access to respectivesets of information about the simulation that may be used as a basis forformulating their respective inputs for controlling objects in thesimulation. In some embodiments, the information visible to one or bothof the models may include various information about the simulatedenvironment, such as layout of the environment, simulated agents (e.g.,people, security officers, security canines, civilians,attackers/terrorists) in the environment, and/or expected behavior ofsimulated agents in the environment.

In some embodiments, the information visible to the different models maybe different. In some embodiments, one model may have access to moreinformation than the other model. For example, in some embodiments, theamount of information available to the first model (e.g., defense model106 a) may be greater than the information available to the second model(e.g., attack model 106 b); this arrangement may, for example, simulatesituations in which a security agency such as the TSA may have greaterinstitutional knowledge about a security checkpoint layout that is notavailable to adversaries/attackers.

In some embodiments, information available to the second model (e.g.,attack model 106 b) may include certain information about one or morethreat mitigation inputs for a current iteration of the simulation thathave been inputted by the first model (e.g., defense model 106 a). Thatis, the second model may be able to access and leverage certaininformation about a defensive configuration created by the first model,and may thus be able to make decisions about vectors of attack for acurrent iteration of the simulation based on that visible informationabout current defensive configuration/layout.

At block 218, in some embodiments, the system may execute the respectiveiteration of the simulated security checkpoint based on the receivedthreat-mitigation inputs and the received threat inputs. In the exampleof system 100 in FIG. 1, the respective iteration of the simulation maybe executed by simulation engine 102.

In some embodiments, executing the respective iteration of thesimulation may comprise simulating a predefined amount of time in thesimulation. For example, the simulation may be configured such that eachiteration simulates a predefined window of time, such as 5 minutes, 10minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, 1day, 1 week, or 1 month. In some embodiments, a simulation may beexecuted in an amount of time that is less than the amount ofin-simulation time represented by the simulation. For example, thesimulation may represent a span of minutes, hours, days, weeks, months,or years, but may be executed in a time span of less than 1 month, lessthan 1 weeks, less than 1 day, less than 1 hour, less than 10 minutes,or less than 1 minute. In some embodiments, the simulation engine may beconfigured to receive inputs (e.g., threat-mitigation inputs and/orthreat inputs) during execution of the simulation, whereas in someembodiments the simulation engine may be configured such that inputs(e.g., all threat-mitigation inputs and/or all threat inputs) for aniteration of the simulation are all received before execution of thesimulation.

At block 220, in some embodiments, the system may generate output databased on executing the respective iteration of the simulation.

In some embodiments, the output data may comprise one or morevisualizations of the execution of an iteration of the simulation. Thevisualization may include visualizations of data/metrics regarding thesimulation (e.g., configurations of simulated objects, outcomesoccurring in the simulation) and/or may include a rendered visualizationof the simulated environment itself (e.g., a rendered visual depictionof the security checkpoint being simulated).

In some embodiments, one or more visualizations of the simulation may bedisplayed and updated in real-time during execution of the iteration ofthe simulation; in some embodiments, one or more visualizations of thesimulation may be displayed after execution of the iteration of thesimulation.

In some embodiments, the output data may comprise informationcharacterizing and/or quantifying one or more harm/damage outcomes ofthe simulation iteration. For example, as discussed above, the outputinformation may characterize a type and/or quantify a severity of lossof life, injury, property damage, monetary loss, and/or political damagecaused within the simulated environment. In some embodiments, theseoutcomes may express specific information about how and wheredamage/harm was inflicted as well as expressing a total quantificationof the extent of harm/damage that was inflicted in the simulation. Insome embodiments, the output data characterizing and/or quantifying harmoutcomes may be stored to a log, output and/or transmitted for review byone or more users, and/or used by the system for generating inputs forfuture iterations of the simulation.

As shown in the flow chart of FIG. 2, following block 220, the methodmay revert to blocks 214 and/or 216, where a next round ofthreat-mitigation inputs and/or threat inputs may be generated by theadversarial reinforcement learning system (e.g., by the first and secondmodels). As discussed above, in some embodiments, the models may use theoutput data from one or more previous iterations of the simulation inorder to generate inputs for the next iteration(s) of the simulation. Inthis manner, the first model (e.g., a defense model) may analyzeinformation regarding harm/damage outcomes from one or more previousiterations of the simulation and may adjust inputs for a next iterationaccordingly, in order to attempt to thwart previously successful attackstrategies and to minimize harm/damage outcomes in future iterations.Conversely, the second model (e.g., an adversary/attacker model) mayanalyze information regarding harm/damage outcomes from one or moreprevious iterations of the simulation and may adjust inputs for a nextiteration accordingly, in order to attempt to overcome previouslysuccessful defense strategies and to maximize harm/damage outcomes infuture iterations.

In some embodiments, this iterative process of executing iterations maycontinue for any suitable number of iterations. In some embodiments, thenumber of iterations of a simulation performed may be greater than 100,greater than 1,000, greater than 1,000,000, or greater than 100,000,000.(In some embodiments, the number of simulation time-steps (e.g., atomicunits of simulated time within the simulation) per iteration may begreater than 1,000, greater than 10,000, greater than 100,000, greaterthan 1,000,000, or greater than 10,000,000.) In some embodiments, thenumber of iterations of a simulation that are executed may be apredefined number of iterations.

In some embodiments, the number of iterations of a simulation that areexecuted may be a dynamically determined number of iterations. Forexample, in some embodiments, a system may be configured to determinewhen one or more models have “stabilized” and to thereafter ceaseexecuting additional iterations. In some embodiments, the system maydetermine that one or both of the models have stabilized in accordancewith one or more stability criteria being satisfied. For example, thesystem may detect that simulation inputs generated by one or more modelsof an adversarial reinforcement learning system have stabilized over aplurality of successive iterations. This may be determined on the basisthat the inputs are identical or similar to one another (e.g., fallwithin a predefined or dynamically determined variance of one another)over a predefined or dynamically determined number of successiveiterations (or over a predefined or dynamically determined thresholdpercentage of a successive series of iterations). In some embodiments,the system may be configured to cease executing additional iterationswhen at least one model (e.g., either a defense model or an attackmodel) stabilizes. In some embodiments, the system may be configured tocease executing additional iterations when both models in a pair (e.g.,both a defense model and an attack model) stabilize.

Alternately or additionally to detecting stabilization ininputs/strategies executed over a plurality of iterations, a system maybe configured to detect a stabilization in outcomes over a plurality ofiterations. For example, in some embodiments, if a harm/damage outputquantification is above a predefined (or dynamically determinedthreshold for more than a predefined (or dynamically determined) numberof iterations (or for some predefined or dynamically determinedpercentage of iterations thereof), then the system may determine thatthe attacker/attack model has overwhelmed and defeated the defensemodel, and the simulation may be terminated. Similarly, in someembodiments, if a harm/damage output quantification is below apredefined (or dynamically determined threshold for more than apredefined (or dynamically determined) number of iterations (or for somepredefined or dynamically determined percentage of iterations thereof),then the system may determine that the defense model has overwhelmed anddefeated the attacker/attack model, and the simulation may beterminated. In some embodiment, a simulation may be terminated based ona smaller number of attacker successes, whereas terminating thesimulation based on defender successes may require a higher number ofconsecutive successes in order to do so.

At block 222, in some embodiments, the system may generate and outputinformation regarding configurations and metrics of the plurality ofiterations of the simulated security checkpoint. The output informationregarding configurations may include information regardingthreat-mitigation inputs and/or threat inputs on which one or bothmodels stabilized. In this way, the system may be configured to outputinformation about security checkpoint defense and security checkpointattack strategies on that were determined to be most optimal by theadversarial reinforcement learning system. In some embodiments, thisinformation may be stored, outputted, and/or transmitted for analysis byone or more users.

In some embodiments, information regarding optimized threat-mitigationconfigurations and strategies may be used to automatically configure oneor more real-world threat mitigation devices. For example, informationregarding a setting for a threat-mitigation device may be transmitted toa real-world security checkpoint system and used to automaticallyconfigure settings of security devices used therein, such that thereal-world security devices may emulate the optimized settingsdetermined in the simulation system.

In some embodiments, output information regarding metrics of thesimulation may include any information about the simulated environmentfrom one or more of the iterations of the simulation, including but notlimited to inputs executed, objects deployed, object configurations,object performance, harm/damage outcomes simulated, resources/assetsexpended, and/or the manner in which one or more strategies was adaptedover multiple iterations of the simulation. In some embodiments,information regarding the strategies applied by one or more of theadversarial models may be stored, displayed, and/or transmitted for useby one or more users of the system. Said information may in someembodiments be used to make decisions for real-world security checkpointenvironments regarding designing checkpoints, deploying personnel andsecurity equipment in said checkpoints, setting policies/procedures forsaid checkpoints, configuring settings of security devices in saidcheckpoints, and/or for making decisions regarding resource/fundingallocation for said checkpoints.

In some embodiments, output information regarding metrics of thesimulation may include any information about the simulation systemitself, including number of iterations executed, time for execution ofone or more iterations, performance information regarding the simulationengine, and/or performance information regarding on or more of theadversarial models.

While the disclosure herein has been set forth by way of examples inwhich an attack model and a defense model of an adversarialreinforcement learning system may generate inputs for controlling asimulation based on one or more outputs from previous iterations of thesimulation, it should be understood that, in some embodiments, anadversarial reinforcement learning system may be configured such that anattack model and/or a defense model may generate inputs for controllinga simulation based on one or more outputs or outcomes of an earlierportion of an ongoing iteration of the simulation. That is, the modelsmay in some embodiments make adjustments and adaptations in real-timeduring execution of an iteration of the simulation, such that a modelmay react to an earlier occurrence in the iteration of the simulationand/or may update one or more strategies based on results of earlieractions taken in the iteration of the simulation. In some embodiments, amodel may be configured to adapt as frequently as with each time-step ofan iteration of a simulation, wherein a time-step of the simulation maysimulate the most atomic unit of time within the simulated environment(e.g., one minute, one second, one microsecond, etc.). An adversarialreinforcement learning system may accordingly be configured to performany operation disclosed herein with respect to an iteration of asimulation in a similar manner with respect to a time-step (or any otherportion of one or more iterations) of a simulation. For example, anadversarial reinforcement learning system may be configured to generatedata representing outcomes of the simulation after executing a time-stepof the simulation, such that output data regarding the outcomes of thetime-step may be used by the one or more models to generate inputs forone or more subsequent time-steps of the simulation.

As used herein, the term “time-step” may refer to an atomic unit ofsimulated time (e.g., one minute, one second, one microsecond, etc.)within the simulated environment, while the term “iteration” may referto an end-to-end execution of a simulated environment spanning seconds,minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, or years of simulated time.Simulated events at earlier time-steps in a given iteration of asimulated environment may be causally linked to simulated events atlater time-steps in the same iteration of the simulated environment,whereas different iterations of the same simulated environment may becausally unrelated to one another. As used herein, the term “portion”may refer to one or more time-steps of a simulation and/or to one ormore iterations of a simulation.

Exemplary Computing Components

FIG. 3 illustrates a computer, in accordance with some embodiments.Computer 300 can be a component of a system for simulating securitycheckpoint environments using adversarial reinforcement learning, suchas system 100 and/or any of its subcomponents described above withrespect to FIG. 1. In some embodiments, computer 300 may be configuredto execute a method for simulating security checkpoint environmentsusing adversarial reinforcement learning, such as all or part of method200 of FIG. 2. In some embodiments, computer 300 may be configured toexecute any of the other techniques discussed herein, alone and/or incombination with one another and/or with method 200.

Computer 300 can be a host computer connected to a network. Computer 300can be a client computer or a server. As shown in FIG. 3, computer 300can be any suitable type of microprocessor-based device, such as apersonal computer; workstation; server; or handheld computing device,such as a phone or tablet. The computer can include, for example, one ormore of processor 310, input device 320, output device 330, storage 340,and communication device 360.

Input device 320 can be any suitable device that provides input, such asa touch screen or monitor, keyboard, mouse, or voice-recognition device.Output device 330 can be any suitable device that provides output, suchas a touch screen, monitor, printer, disk drive, or speaker.

Storage 340 can be any suitable device that provides storage, such as anelectrical, magnetic, or optical memory, including a RAM, cache, harddrive, CD-ROM drive, tape drive, or removable storage disk.Communication device 360 can include any suitable device capable oftransmitting and receiving signals over a network, such as a networkinterface chip or card. The components of the computer can be connectedin any suitable manner, such as via a physical bus or wirelessly.Storage 340 can be a non-transitory computer-readable storage mediumcomprising one or more programs, which, when executed by one or moreprocessors, such as processor 310, cause the one or more processors toexecute methods described herein, such as all or part of method 200described with respect to FIG. 2.

Software 350, which can be stored in storage 340 and executed byprocessor 310, can include, for example, the programming that embodiesthe functionality of the present disclosure (e.g., as embodied in thesystems, computers, servers, and/or devices as described above). In someembodiments, software 350 can be implemented and executed on acombination of servers such as application servers and database servers.

Software 350 can also be stored and/or transported within anycomputer-readable storage medium for use by or in connection with aninstruction execution system, apparatus, or device, such as thosedescribed above, that can fetch and execute instructions associated withthe software from the instruction execution system, apparatus, ordevice. In the context of this disclosure, a computer-readable storagemedium can be any medium, such as storage 340, that can contain or storeprogramming for use by or in connection with an instruction executionsystem, apparatus, or device.

Software 350 can also be propagated within any transport medium for useby or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, ordevice, such as those described above, that can fetch and executeinstructions associated with the software from the instruction executionsystem, apparatus, or device. In the context of this disclosure, atransport medium can be any medium that can communicate, propagate, ortransport programming for use by or in connection with an instructionexecution system, apparatus, or device. The transport-readable mediumcan include, but is not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical,electromagnetic, or infrared wired or wireless propagation medium.

Computer 300 may be connected to a network, which can be any suitabletype of interconnected communication system. The network can implementany suitable communications protocol and can be secured by any suitablesecurity protocol. The network can comprise network links of anysuitable arrangement that can implement the transmission and receptionof network signals, such as wireless network connections, T1 or T3lines, cable networks, DSL, or telephone lines. Computer 300 may becomposed of components which are interconnected across a network, suchas a distributed system. Computer 300 may be organized into any suitabletopology, such as a star topology, a recursively defined topology, amesh topology, a ring topology, or an ad-hoc topology.

Computer 300 can implement any operating system suitable for operatingon the network. Software 350 can be written in any suitable programminglanguage, such as C, C++, Java, or Python. In various embodiments,application software embodying the functionality of the presentdisclosure can be deployed in different configurations, such as in aclient/server arrangement or through a Web browser as a Web-basedapplication or Web service, for example.

The foregoing description, for the purpose of explanation, has beendescribed with reference to specific embodiments. However, theillustrative discussions above are not intended to be exhaustive or tolimit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. Many modificationsand variations are possible in view of the above teachings. Theembodiments were chosen and described in order to best explain theprinciples of the techniques and their practical applications. Othersskilled in the art are thereby enabled to best utilize the techniquesand various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to theparticular use contemplated.

Although the disclosure and examples have been fully described withreference to the accompanying figures, it is to be noted that variouschanges and modifications will become apparent to those skilled in theart. Such changes and modifications are to be understood as beingincluded within the scope of the disclosure and examples as defined bythe claims. Finally, the entire disclosure of the patents andpublications referred to in this application are hereby incorporatedherein by reference.

1. A method for simulating a security checkpoint, the method performedby an adversarial reinforcement learning system comprising one or moreprocessors, the method comprising: executing a first portion of asimulation of a security checkpoint to generate an outcome of the firstportion of the simulation; generating, by a first model, a threatmitigation input, wherein the threat mitigation input comprisesinstructions for controlling one or more of a plurality of simulatedthreat-mitigation objects in a subsequent portion of the simulation,wherein the threat mitigation input is generated based at least in parton the outcome of the first portion; and generating, by a second model,a threat input, wherein the threat input comprises instructions forcontrolling one or more of a plurality of simulated threat objects inthe subsequent portion of the simulation, wherein the threat input isgenerated based at least in part on the outcome of the first portion;and executing the subsequent portion of the simulation based at least inpart of the threat mitigation input and the threat input.
 2. The methodof claim 1, comprising: receiving, by the first model, a first set ofinformation regarding the simulated security checkpoint, whereingenerating the threat mitigation inputs is based on the first set ofinformation; and receiving, by the second model, a second set ofinformation regarding the simulated security checkpoint, whereingenerating the threat inputs is based on the second set of information.3. The method of claim 1, wherein a threat-mitigation object of theplurality of threat-mitigation objects is simulated in accordance withan associated effectiveness at mitigating an outcome associated with oneor more threat objects of the plurality of threat objects.
 4. The methodof claim 3, wherein the effectiveness comprises a likelihood ofdetecting the one or more threat objects.
 5. The method of claim 3,wherein the effectiveness comprises a capability to decrease severity ofthe outcome associated with the one or more threat objects.
 6. Themethod of claim 1, wherein a first threat object of the plurality ofthreat objects is simulated in accordance with an outcome associatedwith the first threat object.
 7. The method of claim 6, wherein theoutcome associated with the first threat object is based on a locationof the first threat object within the simulated security checkpoint. 8.The method of claim 6, wherein the outcome associated with the firstthreat object is associated with a combination of the first threatobject and a second threat object.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein: athreat object of the plurality of threat objects is simulated inaccordance with synthetic data generated by a synthetic data generator;a threat-mitigation object of the plurality of threat-mitigation objectsis simulated in accordance with an automated threat-detection algorithm;and executing the simulation comprises applying the automatedthreat-detection algorithm to the synthetic data.
 10. The method ofclaim 1, comprising automatically receiving environment data regardingthe security checkpoint to be simulated, wherein executing thesimulation of the security checkpoint is based on the environment datareceived.
 11. The method of claim 1, comprising automatically receivingobject data regarding one or more of the threat-mitigation objects orone or more of the threat objects to be simulated, wherein executing thesimulation of the security checkpoint is based on the object datareceived.
 12. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the threatmitigation input is performed in accordance with a first set of assetlimitations that limits the threat-mitigation objects that may bedeployed in the simulation.
 13. The method of claim 1, whereingenerating the threat input is performed in accordance with a second setof asset limitations that limits the threat objects that may be deployedin the simulation.
 14. The method of claim 1, further comprising ceasingexecuting one or more of the portions of the simulated environment inaccordance with determining that one or more stability criteria havebeen satisfied.
 15. The method of claim 1, further comprising generatingoutput data representing a configuration of the plurality of threatmitigations represented by the threat mitigation inputs for one of theportions of the simulation.
 16. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising generating output data representing a plurality of threatsrepresented by the threat inputs for one of the portions of thesimulation.
 17. The method of claim 1, wherein: executing the firstportion of the simulation comprises executing a first time-step of thesimulation; and executing the subsequent portion of the simulationcomprises executing a subsequent time-step of the simulation occurring,in the simulated environment, after the first time-step of thesimulation.
 18. The method of claim 1, wherein executing the firstportion of the simulation comprises executing a first iteration of thesimulation; and executing the subsequent portion of the simulationcomprises executing a subsequent iteration of the simulation executedafter the first iteration of the simulation.
 19. An adversarialreinforcement learning system for simulating a security checkpoint, thesystem comprising one or more processors configured to: execute a firstportion of a simulation of a security checkpoint to generate an outcomeof the first portion of the simulation; generate, by a first model, athreat mitigation input, wherein the threat mitigation input comprisesinstructions for controlling one or more of a plurality of simulatedthreat-mitigation objects in a subsequent portion of the simulation,wherein the threat mitigation input is generated based at least in parton the outcome of the first portion; and generate, by a second model, athreat input, wherein the threat input comprises instructions forcontrolling one or more of a plurality of simulated threat objects inthe subsequent portion of the simulation, wherein the threat input isgenerated based at least in part on the outcome of the first portion;and execute the subsequent portion of the simulation based at least inpart of the threat mitigation input and the threat input.
 20. Anon-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructionsconfigured to be executed by one or more processors of an adversarialreinforcement learning system the instructions configured to cause thesystem to: execute a first portion of a simulation of a securitycheckpoint to generate an outcome of the first portion of thesimulation; generate, by a first model, a threat mitigation input,wherein the threat mitigation input comprises instructions forcontrolling one or more of a plurality of simulated threat-mitigationobjects in a subsequent portion of the simulation, wherein the threatmitigation input is generated based at least in part on the outcome ofthe first portion; and generate, by a second model, a threat input,wherein the threat input comprises instructions for controlling one ormore of a plurality of simulated threat objects in the subsequentportion of the simulation, wherein the threat input is generated basedat least in part on the outcome of the first portion; and execute thesubsequent portion of the simulation based at least in part of thethreat mitigation input and the threat input.